5 ms·

> Altman had been traveling to the Middle East to fundraise for the project, which was code-named Tigris, the people said. The OpenAI chief executive officer pl

> Altman had been traveling to the Middle East to fundraise for the project, which was code-named Tigris, the people said. The OpenAI chief executive officer planned to spin up an AI-focused chip company that could produce semiconductors that compete against those from Nvidia Corp., which currently dominates the market for artificial intelligence tasks. Altman’s chip venture is not yet formed and the talks with investors are in the early stages, said the people, who asked not to be named as the discussions were private.

ryzvonusef 3y ago
However apparently even this wasn't the reason for Sam's ouster... so the question remains, what was?
- himaraya 3y ago
  Not exactly. Ilya allegedly disliked Sam fundraising side hustles off his profile at OpenAI. It sounds like a confluence of factors precipitated the ousting.
  - cactusplant7374 3y ago
    It seems more likely Illya is a less wrong type of person that saw Sam as a threat to his vision. He doesn't like the commercialization aspect where as Sam would prefer OpenAI didn't go broke.
    - himaraya 3y ago
      Well, Sam & Greg allegedly sidelined Ilya shortly before all this went down. It seems like Ilya felt he had to make a drastic move.
    - juliangoldsmith 3y ago
      "Not going broke" is a bit different from announcing an "open" venture, then, once it's successful, doing everything possible to make it closed and stifle competition (through regulatory capture).
      - tyrfing 3y ago
        > once it's successful, doing everything possible to make it closed and stifle competition (through regulatory capture). Half of the current 4-member board is also involved with GovAI, which is dedicated to AI safety research and advocating regulation. Aren't they more likely to think that OpenAI has been extremely reckless in publicly releasing models and research like they have?
        juliangoldsmith 3y ago
        They weren't the ones who went before Congress, asking for regulations that would prevent new startups taking root. (Something like a minimum of 25 employees dedicated to moderation against bias, as I recall. That would be trivial for OpenAI, but impossible when on a budget.)
  - KennyFromIT 3y ago
    Can someone explain how it's ethical to be working on multiple things like this at the same time (e.g. OpenAI, AI chips, that eye orb crypto thing), but the benefits of each not accruing to the other investors, only to that individual? I've always had similar questions about folks like Musk and Dorsey. Is it simply lack of proper governance? Is it something written into their contacts? Is this just a Silicon Valley thing? I can only imagine that a lot of people would like to work on many side projects, but their employment agreements forbid it.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - civilitty 3y ago
      > I've always had similar questions about folks like Musk and Dorsey. Is it simply lack of proper governance? Is it something written into their contacts? Is this just a Silicon Valley thing? I can only imagine that a lot of people would like to work on many side projects, but their employment agreements forbid it. Folks like Musk and Dorsey have a lot more leverage when they're negotiating their contracts but when it comes to public companies, they get sued all the time over their decisions. The lawsuits are just very drawn out, boring affairs that normally get settled during discovery, before any details actually become public so we don't often hear much about them from the media. Musk was sued by tons of people over self dealing when Tesla bought SolarCity, for example.
    - voxic11 3y ago
      How do you know the benefits are accruing to only altman? I thought he claims to have no stake in OpenAI.
      - itronitron 3y ago
        >> I thought he claims to have no stake in OpenAI. That's good, then he probably won't mind not being there.
    - swatcoder 3y ago
      It’s “ethical” in that it’s broadly accepted, and it’s accepted because those CEO’s are usually talented dealmakers that deliver huge opportunities to the companies they lead. It’s not new or unique to Silicon Valley. You can see these personalities pop up in commercial and political dealmaking throughout pretty much all of history. You can get away with a lot when you’re effective.
throwoutway 3y ago
Using your celebrity status as CEO of a non-profit to raise money for multiple related for-profits does seem like you may be more dedicated to personal financial motivations than that of the non-profit's mission and charter. No indication this was the trigger event, but reasonable that the board took notice of all these things. Even viewing this in the best possible, most innocent light, it still looks bad and Sam should have known better.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  he wasn't CEO of a non-profit. He was CEO of the for-profit OpenAI company.
  - throwoutway 3y ago
    Do you know where that's documented? All reporting seems to indicate otherwise and all the digging i did confirmed he was CEO of the non-profit too. For example: https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/17/sam-altman-is-out-as-openais-ceo/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/17/sam-altman-is-out-as-opena...

ryzvonusef 3y ago

However apparently even this wasn't the reason for Sam's ouster... so the question remains, what was?

himaraya 3y ago
Not exactly. Ilya allegedly disliked Sam fundraising side hustles off his profile at OpenAI. It sounds like a confluence of factors precipitated the ousting.
- cactusplant7374 3y ago
  It seems more likely Illya is a less wrong type of person that saw Sam as a threat to his vision. He doesn't like the commercialization aspect where as Sam would prefer OpenAI didn't go broke.
  - himaraya 3y ago
    Well, Sam & Greg allegedly sidelined Ilya shortly before all this went down. It seems like Ilya felt he had to make a drastic move.
  - juliangoldsmith 3y ago
    "Not going broke" is a bit different from announcing an "open" venture, then, once it's successful, doing everything possible to make it closed and stifle competition (through regulatory capture).
    - tyrfing 3y ago
      > once it's successful, doing everything possible to make it closed and stifle competition (through regulatory capture). Half of the current 4-member board is also involved with GovAI, which is dedicated to AI safety research and advocating regulation. Aren't they more likely to think that OpenAI has been extremely reckless in publicly releasing models and research like they have?
      - juliangoldsmith 3y ago
        They weren't the ones who went before Congress, asking for regulations that would prevent new startups taking root. (Something like a minimum of 25 employees dedicated to moderation against bias, as I recall. That would be trivial for OpenAI, but impossible when on a budget.)
- KennyFromIT 3y ago
  Can someone explain how it's ethical to be working on multiple things like this at the same time (e.g. OpenAI, AI chips, that eye orb crypto thing), but the benefits of each not accruing to the other investors, only to that individual? I've always had similar questions about folks like Musk and Dorsey. Is it simply lack of proper governance? Is it something written into their contacts? Is this just a Silicon Valley thing? I can only imagine that a lot of people would like to work on many side projects, but their employment agreements forbid it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - civilitty 3y ago
    > I've always had similar questions about folks like Musk and Dorsey. Is it simply lack of proper governance? Is it something written into their contacts? Is this just a Silicon Valley thing? I can only imagine that a lot of people would like to work on many side projects, but their employment agreements forbid it. Folks like Musk and Dorsey have a lot more leverage when they're negotiating their contracts but when it comes to public companies, they get sued all the time over their decisions. The lawsuits are just very drawn out, boring affairs that normally get settled during discovery, before any details actually become public so we don't often hear much about them from the media. Musk was sued by tons of people over self dealing when Tesla bought SolarCity, for example.
  - voxic11 3y ago
    How do you know the benefits are accruing to only altman? I thought he claims to have no stake in OpenAI.
    - itronitron 3y ago
      >> I thought he claims to have no stake in OpenAI. That's good, then he probably won't mind not being there.
  - swatcoder 3y ago
    It’s “ethical” in that it’s broadly accepted, and it’s accepted because those CEO’s are usually talented dealmakers that deliver huge opportunities to the companies they lead. It’s not new or unique to Silicon Valley. You can see these personalities pop up in commercial and political dealmaking throughout pretty much all of history. You can get away with a lot when you’re effective.

throwoutway 3y ago

Using your celebrity status as CEO of a non-profit to raise money for multiple related for-profits does seem like you may be more dedicated to personal financial motivations than that of the non-profit's mission and charter. No indication this was the trigger event, but reasonable that the board took notice of all these things. Even viewing this in the best possible, most innocent light, it still looks bad and Sam should have known better.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
he wasn't CEO of a non-profit. He was CEO of the for-profit OpenAI company.
- throwoutway 3y ago
  Do you know where that's documented? All reporting seems to indicate otherwise and all the digging i did confirmed he was CEO of the non-profit too. For example: https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/17/sam-altman-is-out-as-openais-ceo/ https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/17/sam-altman-is-out-as-opena...